Fight the Treatment Industrial Complex

AFSC-Arizona staff are amazing advocates for prisoners - and as such, are true blessings to our communities. Spend time on their site - lots of resources.

RUSTBELT RADIO

NATIVE RESISTANCE AND THE CARCERAL STATE

Retiring Arizona Prison Watch...

This site was originally started in July 2009 as an independent endeavor to monitor conditions in Arizona's criminal justice system, as well as offer some critical analysis of the prison industrial complex from a prison abolitionist/anarchist's perspective. It was begun in the aftermath of the death of Marcia Powell, a 48 year old AZ state prisoner who was left in an outdoor cage in the desert sun for over four hours while on a 10-minute suicide watch. That was at ASPC-Perryville, in Goodyear, AZ, in May 2009.

Marcia, a seriously mentally ill woman with a meth habit sentenced to the minimum mandatory 27 months in prison for prostitution was already deemed by society as disposable. She was therefore easily ignored by numerous prison officers as she pleaded for water and relief from the sun for four hours. She was ultimately found collapsed in her own feces, with second degree burns on her body, her organs failing, and her body exceeding the 108 degrees the thermometer would record. 16 officers and staff were disciplined for her death, but no one was ever prosecuted for her homicide. Her story is here.

Marcia's death and this blog compelled me to work for the next 5 1/2 years to document and challenge the prison industrial complex in AZ, most specifically as manifested in the Arizona Department of Corrections. I corresponded with over 1,000 prisoners in that time, as well as many of their loved ones, offering all what resources I could find for fighting the AZ DOC themselves - most regarding their health or matters of personal safety.

I also began to work with the survivors of prison violence, as I often heard from the loved ones of the dead, and learned their stories. During that time I memorialized the Ghosts of Jan Brewer - state prisoners under her regime who were lost to neglect, suicide or violence - across the city's sidewalks in large chalk murals. Some of that art is here.

In November 2014 I left Phoenix abruptly to care for my family. By early 2015 I was no longer keeping up this blog site, save occasional posts about a young prisoner in solitary confinement in Arpaio's jail, Jessie B.

I'm deeply grateful to the prisoners who educated, confided in, and encouraged me throughout the years I did this work. My life has been made all the more rich and meaningful by their engagement.

I've linked to some posts about advocating for state prisoner health and safety to the right, as well as other resources for families and friends. If you are in need of additional assistance fighting the prison industrial complex in Arizona - or if you care to offer some aid to the cause - please contact the Phoenix Anarchist Black Cross at PO Box 7241 / Tempe, AZ 85281. collective@phoenixabc.org

When young people with
disabilities end up in the juvenile justice system, they're less likely
to return to youth prisons after their sentence is up if they have jobs
or go to school quickly after being released, a new paper says.

However, comprehensive programs that help these youth go from prison to the outside world are scarce, says this piece
from Project Forum at the National Association of State Directors of
Special Education. And juveniles with disabilities have a high
recidivism rate—more than the 55 percent rate for youth without
disabilities.

The report looks closely at the practices in four states—Arizona,
Georgia, Hawaii, and Oregon—when it comes to supporting all juveniles,
including those with disabilities, who are leaving the justice system.

Some common practices the report found in states with programs
intended to reduce recidivism for these young people include: a
continuum of supports for youth that begins in prison and keeps going
once they leave; transition facilitators or coordinators who are
dedicated to working with these youth; and programs for reentering
society that are comprehensive, addressing education, employment, social
and behavioral skills, mental health, substance-abuse issues, housing,
and transportation. Another common theme in the report? Budget problems
often keep these programs from going long-term.

Here are some details of individual state's programs:

•Before youths' release, Arizona's Department of Juvenile Corrections
assigns them a transition coordinator who establishes a relationship
and supports them after they leave. Four of these coordinators travel
the state and work with parole officers, the state director of special
education, and school districts to ensure these juveniles are enrolled
in the right programs at the end of their sentences. These coordinators
even go to students' IEP meetings.

•Georgia's "Think Exit at Entry"
program provides educational planning, progress reviews, transition
facilitators, and other supports to youth in the juvenile justice
system, including those with disabilities. The program has been scaled
back since a federal grant expired in 2007, although some parts of it
have kept going because of the partnerships already established among
state agencies.

•Hawaii's Olomana School serves students in the Hawaii Youth
Correctional Facility, and youth participate in regular meetings about
their behavior and school work. Because the state runs all schools in
Hawaii, transferring records back to schools when students are released
is seamless—and transfer of records is critical to a successful reentry
for students with disabilities, the report says.

•Oregon's Project STAY OUT—Strategies Teaching Adolescent Young
Offenders to Use Transition Skills—is specifically for youth with an
IEP, 504 plan,
or mental health diagnosis. Youth work on self-determination skills,
social skills, finding work, and other goals. One study found that 66
percent of STAY OUT participants were either employed or in school
during the first six months after their release from juvenile justice
programs, the very things that are likely to keep them from returning.

The key term is "evidence-based practice". Good luck. I hope you
manage to wage a successful boycott of Eloy and CCA by the time this
battle is over. Israel outlawed private prisons
because the profit motive is in direct opposition to human rights
concerns - maybe Hawai'i will abandon them as well, for all the right
reasons.

This study examined the records of the 660
persons who were released on parole in the State of Hawaii between July
1, 2005 and June 30, 2006 (Fiscal Year 2006). It addresses two main
questions: What are the demographic and criminal history profiles of
parolees who have been incarcerated in Hawaii and in private prisons out
of state? And, how do the recidivism rates of these two groups compare?
Using records obtained from the Hawaii Paroling Authority, the
Department of Public Safety, and the Department of the Attorney General,
parolees were tracked for three to four years after their release from
prison.

The study found that:

- 54 percent
of Hawaii’s prisoners are incarcerated in private prisons on the
mainland — the highest percentage among all U.S. states.

- As of
the end of 2009, it cost approximately $118 per day to incarcerate an
inmate in Hawaii, and at least $62 per day to incarcerate him or her in a
private prison on the mainland. Note, however, that unlike the in-state
per day cost, the private prison cost estimate is not all-inclusive.

-
75 percent of Fiscal Year 2006 parolees never served time in a private
prison on the mainland, while 25 percent did serve time there.

- Of the one-quarter of parolees who have been imprisoned on the mainland, 70 percent served half or more of their time there.

- The average time served on the mainland was 3.5 years.
The analysis of the parolees’ demographic and criminal history profiles found that:

-
Parolees averaged 56 total prior arrests and 24 convictions per
parolee, including an average of 20 prior felony arrests and 8 felony
convictions.

- Parolees in the mainland cohort had somewhat more
felony arrests and felony convictions per person than did parolees in
the Hawaii cohort.

- Parolees in the mainland cohort had been
convicted of fewer property and drug crimes, and more violent and
“other” offenses, than had the parolees in the Hawaii cohort.

-
The average maximum sentence for parolees who had been incarcerated on
the mainland was longer: 10.9 years, versus 8.5 years for the Hawaii
cohort.

- The average time served by the mainland cohort was longer: 6.2 years, versus 3.2 years for the Hawaii cohort.

-
The mainland cohort included substantially more males than did the
Hawaii cohort: 20 male parolees for every female parolee in the mainland
group, versus 4 male parolees for every female parolee in the Hawaii
group.

-
As compared to their male counterparts, female parolees in both cohorts
were more likely to be property and drug crime offenders.

-
There were no statistically significant differences in ethnicity between
the two parole cohorts. Most notably, Native Hawaiians comprised 40
percent of each cohort.

The analysis of recidivism found that:

-
Parolees in the mainland cohort received significantly lower scores on
the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). Hence, mainlanders had
fewer needs for service and a lower average risk of recidivism than did parolees in the Hawaii cohort.

- A little more than half of parolees in both cohorts failed on parole within three years.

- The average time to recidivism in both cohorts was about 15 months.

-
The recidivism rate for the mainland cohort (53 percent) was slightly
lower than the recidivism rate for the Hawaii cohort (56 percent), but
this difference is not statistically significant.

- There was more recidivism among the mainland cohort for parolees in the higher-risk LSI-R categories.

- There was more recidivism among the mainland cohort for violating conditions of parole.

- Nearly half of all rearrests were for violating the conditions of parole.

-
In both cohorts, older people recidivated less than did younger people.
Age is a powerful ally of efforts to stop criminal offending.

- There were few significant differences between the two cohorts in acts of misconduct committed while in prison.

- Parolees in the mainland cohort were more likely to violate parole conditions than were parolees in the Hawaii group.

-
Furlough programs were related to significantly lower rates of
recidivism among mainland parolees, but not among parolees who were
imprisoned only in Hawaii.

Recommendations from this study:

-
Since there is no empirical justification for the policy argument that
private prisons reduce recidivism better than public prisons, the State
of Hawaii should decide whether to continue, discontinue, expand, or
contract its reliance on private prisons based on other criteria. While
cost is one criterion, it is not the only one that is important to
consider.

-
It is ill-advised to rely on a framework for thinking about corrections
(herein termed humonetarianism) that stresses short-term financial
savings at the expense of programs aimed at improving the prospects for
offenders’ rehabilitation and the satisfaction of their basic needs and
rights. Long-term savings are often found in forward-thinking policies
and programs.

-
The State of Hawaii needs to calculate more inclusive and accurate
estimates of the cost of incarceration in-state and in private prisons
on the mainland.

- Much more research needs to be done in order
to adequately describe the contours and consequences of Hawaii’s
correctional policy. One high priority is a study that explores who gets
sent to prison (and where). The present study examined only persons who
were released on parole.

- The State of Hawaii should conduct
more research about its correctional policies and outcomes, especially
given a policy world that is increasingly evidence-based.

-
The Department of Public Safety and the Hawaii Paroling Authority need
an integrated records management system. At present, inmates’ records
are often incomplete, scattered, and difficult to locate.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1609.01, on December 21, 2011, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) submitted the Biennial Comparison of “Private Versus Public Provision of Services” Report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC).

In 2009, Charles Ryan the newly appointed ADC Director found that a formal,comprehensive biennial report comparing private and public provision of services, required by A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M), had not been completed and submitted to JLBC since the law was originally enacted. In order to comply with the statutory requirement and produce the report, it was necessary for Director Ryan to develop the tools needed to capture sufficient data to measure and compare private and public prisons. This included creating a new prison operations inspection program and annual audit process that could be used both to ensure operational compliance and to collect and to measure data for the required comparison. In addition, it was necessary to revise existing processes and develop new processes to reliably capture and report event-driven and outcome-based comparative prison data. This included enhancements to the significant incident reporting (SIR) process, collection of assault data and mortality data, and revision of internal data collection tools for inmate programs and services. Once annual audit data was available for calendar year 2011 and comparative data was available for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the biennial comparison required by A.R.S. § 41-1609.01 was completed.

Students warned of charges that can stem from skipping school

The excuses for missing dozens of days of school this year ranged
from insomnia to asthma to not liking the "drama" in high-school
hallways.

But Judge Dan Dodge wasn't having any of it at a new special hearing he holds for truants and their parents once a month.

"Chronic truancy is a criminal offense. Do you want to start out your
life with a criminal record?" Dodge said as he stared down from the
bench at Gilbert's Highland Justice Court at a sleepy-eyed 15-year-old
Dobson High School student.The freshman said he has missed dozens of days of school this year
because he usually struggles to fall asleep until 3 a.m. He then has
trouble getting up for his 8 a.m. class. And Mom, typically asleep
herself at the hour school starts, is no help, the student said.

"I don't really care about school," he had said before walking into the courtroom. "I would rather stay up late and play music."

Dodge was unsympathetic, saying the problem could easy be solved with
fewer late-night jam sessions and a louder morning alarm clock. Or
maybe Mom should just pour a glass of water on his head every morning at
6 a.m., the judge said.

Dodge told the young insomniac to have no more unexcused absences
this year or he could lose his right to apply for an Arizona driver's
license until he turns 18.

Potential prosecution

On a recent afternoon, Dodge looked around a courtroom full of
accused truants, their parents and their guardians and told everyone to
shape up or face prosecution by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

Parents in the room eyed each other with chagrin as Dodge told them
that they, along with their teens, could face Class 3 misdemeanor
charges -- meaning fines and possible jail sentences -- if they did not
get their kids to school on time or make arrangements for them to study
at home because of chronic illnesses.

"And if you want to drop out and ruin your life at age 16, that is
your prerogative. But before that, it is not your privilege," Dodge told
the students, who are not identified because The Arizona Republic typically does not print the names of juveniles accused of crimes.

Dodge ordered the kids and parents to return to his courtroom in
March with report cards and attendance records. If things have improved
by then, charges will be dropped.

At least one student in the courtroom was already on her way to a new
life. Wearing a charter-school uniform, she told Dodge that she hated
the "drama" at her former district high school and had been in class
every day since she transferred.

Truancy court is a no-nonsense year-old partnership between the Mesa
Public Schools Safety and Security Department and East Valley justice of
the peace courts, including Dodge's.

Mesa, the largest school district in the state, has a long history of being the toughest on truants.

Most schools traditionally let attendance clerks and counselors deal
with kids who play hooky occasionally and report chronic truants to
local police. Peoria Unified School District in the West Valley has an
innovative on-campus program called "Sweeps" that requires kids who are
late or loitering around campus to spend at least one class period away
from other students explaining to a teacher why they were AWOL.

In contrast, Mesa employs nine uniformed, body-armor-wearing,
pepper-spray-carrying security officers who spend at least half of their
time tracking truants and their parents. The officers are not sworn
law-enforcement officials but have been trained to restrain young
offenders until police arrive.

The annual cost in salaries is about $140,000 for the anti-truancy
program, said Mesa schools security director Allen Moore, who believes
the expense is more than worth it.

Pathway to crime

While the district wants as many kids in school as possible -- it
gets nearly $5,000 a year in funding for each child enrolled and has
lost 9,000 students in the past decade -- it's even more important to
turn around truant kids before they get involved in crime, Moore said.

After performing normal school-security duties, the nine officers
patrol areas that truants like to frequent -- shopping malls,
electronics stores and restaurants with deals on breakfast -- in search
of kids who should be in a classroom.

While one ditch day here or there probably does not mean the start of
a criminal career, juvenile-crime experts say habitual truancy often is
the first step toward involvement with drugs, vandalism, burglaries and
gangs.

"We get calls from the parks, from the malls ... sometimes the kids
have already been involved in burglaries," said Tim Pinsonneault,
security supervisor for Mesa Public Schools.

"Habitual truants like to hang out with each other," Mesa security
officer Nathan Wax said. "Kids all have cellphones. They text each other
and meet up at houses where parents aren't home."

In most cases, truancy problems are solved with a simple visit with the child and parents from a school security officer.

"We meet with parents and the student, we explain the state law to
them. We say our goal is not to cite them," Pinsonneault said. "But if
they don't correct the behavior, they are served by a process server and
they have to go to court. If they don't show up, a warrant is issued
for their arrest."

Moore said his officers have stumbled onto meth labs and dwellings
where the conditions were so uninhabitable that they called Mesa police
and the state's Child Protective Services.

But, he said, truancy is a middle-class problem, too.

"We have parents who want to take their kids out of school for a
cruise," he said. "That is not allowed. And some parents want to start
holiday break by going on vacation early. We don't call that vacation.
We call it truancy."

Tutoring, counseling and parenting classes are made available to kids
and parents who need them. But Moore said in many cases families just
need to be made aware of the law. He said in the last calendar year, his
officers have tracked down and given warnings to 1,184 truant
junior-high and high-school students and 1,972 parents of truant
elementary-schoolers. All but 606 middle- and high-school students and
234 elementary-school students returned to school with no additional
action, he said. Those who did not heed the security officers' warnings
were summoned to truancy hearings in a court like Dodge's.

Pinsonneault said that before last year, Mesa schools, like most
other districts in the county, referred its habitual truants to the
county's Juvenile Probation Department. The problem, he said, was that
some parents failed to take the juvenile citations seriously.

"Bringing everyone to a justice court gives the process more teeth," he said.

Of the 79 chronic truants who appeared in Dodge's court last spring,
only 12 still have charges pending, Moore said. The rest "have corrected
their behavior and are attending school successfully," he said.

"It amazed me what a difference a little bit of the fear of the law would make," Dodge said.

Arizona's truancy law

Arizona law requires students to attend a public, private or home school until they turn 16 or finish 10th grade.

Students must be present 90 percent of the time -- 162 days of a
180-day school year -- to get a passing grade and credit in a class.

Kids are considered chronically truant after they miss 18 days of school, even if some of the days were excused absences.

Schools can issue citations that refer students to court or truancy-diversion programs after five unexcused absences.

Kids who fail to return to school after getting warnings face
penalties ranging from fines to loss of eligibility for an Arizona
driver's license until age 18.
Parents who fail to get their kids back to school can face fines or, in extreme cases, jail time.

In expressing my dismay about the incident that occurred in the MCSO
4th Avenue intake area on December 16, 2011, I have angered some people
employed by MCSO. To those individuals, I say, the information that I
acted on came from inside the MCSO. There are employees of the
organization who are disgusted by the actions of a few and will speak
out.

As sheriff, I will not tolerate this behavior or this attitude. I
will not tolerate those who stand by and allow this type of incident to
take place. Know that the days of covering up behind stalling tactics
are over. The cover-up is frequently worse than the incident itself. The
MCSO is under a microscope. Even if it was not, I expect all the
employees should understand that they are held to a very high standard
of conduct and will be held accountable for their actions. I am outraged
that even one employee of the MCSO would stand by as this incident
unfolded and did nothing to intervene. I am outraged by the atmosphere
and attitude fostered by Arpaio that allowed this to happen. Know that
those who continue to carry this attitude will have no place at the
MCSO.

I stipulate that I have not been privy to an unedited video and have formed some
conclusions based on the video available on You Tube (http://tinyurl.com/7evqt6n) and the report by Fox 10 News in Phoenix (http://tinyurl.com
/7nbuyma). What I saw disturbed me greatly on many levels.

Ernest Atencio according to reports, was arrested for misdemeanor
assault. He had not seen a judge. He had not even gone through the full
intake process.

Nevertheless, the offense he was arrested for, even if
found guilty and convicted at trial, did not warrant a death sentence.
American law enforcement is not judge or jury.

Ernest Atencio arrived at the intake area under his own power and
apparently healthy. He did not initially appear physically combative,
and in fact, the Phoenix Police officers released him from his
handcuffs. It has not been reported what the conversation was between
PPD officers and Mr. Atencio that precipitated the officers to grab him
and attempt to restrain him.

If the reason for the physical contact was to put Mr. Atencio back
into handcuffs, why do none of the officers have handcuffs out? There
are no restraining tools of any kind visible.

As Mr. Atencio struggles with the officers, a Phoenix officer appears
to put Mr. Atencio into a choke hold (2:11), which is considered a
deadly force tactic, and takes him forcefully to the ground. It appears
that Mr. Atencio goes limp for several seconds at this point. The
Phoenix officer is then pushed away by an MCSO detention officer and at
least six detention officers appear to be pinning Mr. Atencio to the
floor.

Although he can’t be seen under the pile of at least six detention
officers, it appears that Mr. Atencio suddenly surges and the detention
officers apply a Taser in “drive stun” mode. This tactic involves firing
a barb from close range, into the subject and then repositioning the
Taser to make contact and complete a circuit that delivers an
immobilizing electric current to the subject for a five second duration.
The detention officers do not appear to be restraining Mr. Atencio
during any of the applications, as those properly trained to use a Taser
are instructed. Taser training also warns that repeated applications of
the Taser is dangerous to the health of a subject and de-escalation
tactics to bring the subject under control should be employed during the
subject’s incapacitation to prevent the need for continued force.

Equally disturbing are the actions of the other officers in the area.
Several officers run into view from other areas and try to join in the
pile. Others appear to be mocking Mr. Atencio and laughing about the
encounter. Their behavior reinforces the perception the officers have a
callous disregard for Mr. Atencio’s well being.

In the holding cell, a detention officer is seen making what appears
to be knee strikes to Mr. Atencio’s head. Another detention officer puts
a restraining hand on that officer’s shoulder to stop him. This occurs
while Mr. Atencio is being held down by at least five other detention
officers. The application of knee strikes to the head while Mr. Atencio
is being restrained is an inappropriately high level of force for the
circumstances.

Mr. Atencio is limp and unresponsive; yet, he is stripped of his
clothing and dumped on the floor of a holding cell. The medical
personnel present do not appear to ascertain Mr. Atencio’s medical
status. No medical follow-up is conducted and Mr. Atencio is left alone.
This again is contrary to Taser policies and training. Training
dictates that anyone subjected to a Taser application be seen
immediately after the situation is stabilized by certified medical
personnel. A person subjected to multiple Taser applications should be
seen by an emergency room Physician.

The vague statement issued by Chief McIntyre that night after the
story broke suggests an attempt to cover up the situation. His statement
indicates that there was no in-custody death that night, an outright
falsehood. The week delay in releasing the video and the timing of the
release further suggests an all out attempt to bury the story by the
MCSO.

These situations require an open, timely release of preliminary
findings. Delay and vagueness only fuel anger and distrust in the
community. Hiding behind a wall of silence is not appropriate. The
leader of the organization must be front and center and accountable to
the community. Only in this way can the organization be trusted to do
what is right.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Here's the MCSO Booking area, where Marty Atencio was attacked; this footage comes via Dennis Gilman, who edited hours of tapes. I, frankly, see no provocation for that Phoenix cop to take down Marty the way he did, much less for ten more officers to jump in...

part I

part II

Here they are putting Marty in a "safe room" now. I have a problem with this policy of stripping mentally ill or unstable prisoners naked to assure their "safety" - it just compounds trauma with humiliation.

Good coverage and observations below, from the Phoenix New Times: Check out links to Stephen Lemons' continuing coverage of the death of Marty Atencio here.

On Tuesday, Atencio's family made the
decision to remove him from life support, but the family's attorney Mike
Manning later noted, "[Atencio] died in the jail."

Friday,
the MCSO released eight hours of video, some of it documenting
Atencio's stay in the sheriff's custody. The chilling words of Atencio's
brother and of Manning have not been rebutted by that footage.

Watch
the video above, taken from hours of jail tape the MCSO unceremoniously
dumped on a ravenous media Friday afternoon. What do you see?

I see a pack of uniformed officers jumping on one unarmed man, who seems to be making no aggressive moves toward them.

While beneath this pile-on, Atencio was Tased. That the Tasing was unnecessary is self-evident.

So the Atencio family's response to the video's
release, in a statement given to the press by Manning, seems wise and
measured, an example of dignity in the face of the media's hunger for
information and Arpaio's spin machine:

"The Atencio family has
instructed that I make no comment today concerning the jail video just
released by Sheriff Arpaio," Manning said. "They are deeply grieving the
death of their Marty and do not want their burden and hurt to interfere
with the joys, blessings, and good cheer that other Valley families are
looking forward to on this eve of the Christmas weekend. We will have a
comment on Monday or Tuesday."

Atencio was acting erratic
before and after his arrest by Phoenix cops on charges of assault. The
Atencio family has indicated their loved one was bipolar and not on his
medication at the time of his arrest.

Now New Times stands
sentinel for another in a long line of those neglected and abused by
the MCSO -- the beaten, the Tased, the tortured and the slain. A line
destined only to end when Arpaio is removed from power.

UPDATE 12/27/11: For more video of Atencio in custody and attorney Mike Manning's comments on same, click, here.

The Department of Corrections' reports and statistics can be found here. News releases are here.

Thanks to all the human rights and neighborhood activists alike out there who helped make this possible. Just note that at the end they announce plans to go ahead with 2,000 private prison beds for men, so the privatization fight isn't over...

Phoenix, Az – Since January 2009, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) has worked with the Governor and the Legislature to ensure that Arizona’s correctional system operates in the public’s best interest. ADC’s primary focus has and continues to be public safety, provided in a manner that is efficient, affordable, and transparent.

To address prison population growth over the years, ADC has constructed new prison facilities, added new and temporary prison beds at existing prison facilities, and contracted with private prisons for adult male beds. In fiscal year (FY) 2009 and early FY 2010, ADC, the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (OSPB), and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) were forecasting a continued inmate population growth rate of 114 inmates per month based on a history of continuous inmate population growth from FY 2001 to FY 2010. Expecting the prison population to grow to nearly 50,000 inmates by the end of 2016, ADC forecasted a need for an additional 8,500 prison beds, both state-operated and private beds, by the end of 2017.

ADC’s forecasted bed need, resulted in the passage of legislation (State of Arizona, Laws 2009, Third Special Session, Chapter 6, HB 2010, FY 2010 Criminal Justice Reconciliation Bill), authorizing ADC to contract for 5,000 private prison beds within the State of Arizona. In keeping with the Governor’s desire for a reasonable balance of private and public prison options for minimum custody and medium custody inmates, ADC initiated the procurement process and on February 23, 2010 issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for 5,000 minimum/medium security male beds. However, on September 1, 2010, in response to the July 30, 2010 ASP-Kingman escape and given the priority of public safety, ADC cancelled the RFP in order to revise and strengthen it. ADC released the revised RFP on January 24, 2011, received proposals from five (5) vendors on February 24, 2011, and conducted five (5) public site hearings between August 9 and August 18, 2011.

Since the original legislation authorizing the 5,000 private prison beds, ADC has worked in unison with the Governor and her staff to ensure continued fiscal responsibility in all activities. This includes annually evaluating inmate population growth and bed needs. In FY 2010 and FY 2011 inmate population growth dramatically declined. ADC’s prison population grew by only 65 inmates in FY 2010, and then declined by 296 inmates in FY 2011. FY 2010 and FY 2011 had the two lowest growth rates on record dating back to 1973. Therefore in light of the decline in inmate growth, it was prudent to reassess Arizona’s prison bed plan both in terms of the total number of beds and the types of beds.

As a result, ADC has determined that of the 8,500 prison beds originally identified, only 2,500 are now needed; 2,000 minimum/medium security male beds are scheduled to come online and be operational in FY 2014 and 500 maximum security male beds are scheduled to come online and be operational in FY 2015. Therefore, ADC is cancelling, effective December 22, 2011, the current RFP (110054DC) for 5,000 private minimum/medium security male beds.

To secure the needed prison beds, ADC will request 500 additional maximum state- operated beds and will issue a new RFP for 2,000 private minimum/medium security male beds under the authority of A.R.S. § 41-1609.

ADC will work with the Governor to secure funding for the new beds and to assure public confidence in the fiscal accountability of our correctional system.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

This report will be the first of its kind in Arizona. To date there
has been no government or independent analysis of the performance and
quality of all prisons in the state. Given that private for-profit
prisons have operated in Arizona for decades, this fact in itself is
shocking. Arizona has invested millions of taxpayer dollars in
for-profit prisons but has provided no evidence that these prisons are
safe, cost effective, or competent at fulfilling the job taxpayers pay
them to do.

When AFSC learned that the state had not properly monitored and
reported on for-profit prison operations, as mandated by law, AFSC
undertook its own investigation into the prison industry in Arizona.

The conclusions are based on data from published studies, news
reports, state audits, Department of Corrections data and safety
inspection reports, and first-person testimony. The full report will
paint a more complete so far available picture of the performance of
for-profit prisons in Arizona.

Included in the study are data on six prisons operated by Corrections
Corporation of America that are located in Arizona but do not contract
with the state, putting them outside state oversight. This data provides
a unique glimpse inside a group of prisons that most Arizonans don’t
even know exist.

Below you will find the preliminary report summary, and much the data
used for the main report. Additional data will be posted, along with
the complete report.
In response to public pressure, the Arizona Department of Corrections
agreed in August 2011 to prepare a report of its own. AFSC believes
that the public deserve an independent assessment before the signing of
contracts for additional for-profit prisons.

Released December 19, 2011. This is the preliminary report summary.
It provides insights into the full report material, and highlights some
of the key findings. AFSC is releasing these preliminary findings
to help the public understand the scope of the problem caused by prison
privatization in Arizona and to encourage more discussion and review
before any more public funds are spent on private prison beds.

As the federal government continues its reliance on immigration
detention, more and more people, including thousands in Arizona, are
forced to endure injustices and inhumane treatment. Through contracts
with private corporations and local county jails, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains 3,000 immigrants on any given day in
Arizona - a 58 percent increase over the past six years.

Yesterday, through her attorneys, Miriam Mendiola-Martinez filed a
federal lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa
Medical Center, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Officers, and Maricopa
Medical Center doctors and nurses, alleging that she was shackled by
Maricopa County Sheriff’s officers during labor and after her Cesarean
delivery. Her attached complaint, alleges that Sheriff Arpaio and the
other defendants violated several constitutional rights, to include the
Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and
the right of prisoners to adequate health care.

The complaint states that in December 2009, while she was held as a
prisoner in Maricopa County jails, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was repeatedly
shackled during her labor and while she recovered from a Cesarean birth.
She also alleges that a MCSO deputy or correctional officer forced her
to walk, with her hands and feet shackled, wearing only a hospital gown
and with a bleeding surgery wound, out of the hospital and then back
into the hospital while she was being discharged from the hospital.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the
American Medical Association oppose the shackling of women in labor or
recuperating from delivery. In 2008, in Nelson v. Norris, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals
found the shackling of women prisoners during labor to constitute cruel
and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The Arizona Department of Corrections eliminated the practice of
shackling women in labor or in postpartum recovery in 2003. In 2007, the
United States Marshal’s Service eliminated the practice of shackling
women in labor. In 2008,
the Federal Bureau of Prisons eliminated the practice of shackling women in labor.

Ms. Mendiola-Martinez is represented by Attorneys Joy Bertrand, Shannon Peters, and John McBee.

The year-end report by the folks at the Death Penalty Information Center
tell more and more Americans what they already know in their hearts to
be true: The death penalty experiment is failing yet again. Undermined
by overzealous prosecutors, a hobby-horse for incurious politicians, too
often taken unseriously by jurors and witnesses, capital punishment in
America has devolved since 1976 into a costly, inaccurate, racially biased, and unseemly proposition.

We clearly can't do it right, and more people are wondering
whether we should continue doing it at all. The facts and figures of
2011 soberly reflect the nation's evolving perceptions of the problems
inherent in the justice system's ultimate punishment. For decades,
"death is different" has been the courtroom mantra of capital cases. But
now, and with increasing clarity, "death is different" is becoming a
discernible trend all across the country. From the DPIC's annual
summary:

New death sentences dropped to 78 in 2011,
representing a dramatic decline from last year's number of 112 and marking the
first time since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976 that the country has
produced fewer than 100 death sentences in a single year... Death sentences have declined about 75 percent since 1996,
when 315 individuals were sentenced to death. Executions have also steadily decreased nationwide, with
43 in 2011 and 46 in 2010, representing a 56 percent decline since 1999, when
there were 98. Texas had 13 executions in 2011, and 24 in 2009, representing a
46 percent drop over two years.

There are a lot of reasons for these numbers. Prosecutors are seeking
the death penalty less often because of the prohibitive costs of capital
cases. Judges and jurors have new sentencing options (like life in
prison without parole). Politicians can no longer deny the unsettling
number of wrongful convictions that have sent hundreds of innocent
people to death row over the years. The Supreme Court has sent
unmistakable signals to lower court judges to rein in trial excesses.
And most of the civilized world has turned against the practice.

So have more Americans. Again, from the DPIC's report:

Also this year, the Gallup Poll, which measures the
public's support for the death penalty, but without offering alternatives,
recorded the lowest level of support and the highest level of opposition in
almost 40 years. Only 61 percent supported the death penalty, compared to 80
percent in 1994. Thirty-five percent were opposed, compared to 16 percent in
1994. A more in-depth CNN poll gave respondents a choice between the death
penalty and life without parole for those who commit murder. Fifty percent
chose a life sentence, while 48 percent chose death.

The most ardent supporters of capital punishment -- the ones who want
more, not fewer executions -- look at all these figures and say in
frustration: "Of course the rate of executions is down. This is down
because of soft judges and crafty defense attorneys, and because of the
murderers themselves, who with nothing to lose and nothing better to do
have succeeded in choking the criminal justice system with all their
bogus appeals." It's the same tired argument these folks have made for
years, however, and it's clearly getting less traction -- in courtrooms,
in living rooms, and in state legislatures.

Take the big death penalty stories of 2011. They all buttress the figures offered by the DPIC. For example, there was the dramatic September execution in Georgia of Troy Davis,
which educated millions of people about the fallibility of eyewitness
testimony in criminal cases. Reasonable people have reasonably disagreed
about whether justice was served in the case, but one essential fact
has always jumped out at me. After a trial that included at least 40
witnesses, it took Davis' jury less than two hours to convict him of murder. That's just not good enough.

Nor was the year's ghastly search
by officials in several states for a key ingredient of the drug
cocktail used in lethal injections. These executioners were forced to scramble like thieves
for the drug sodium thiopental when its American manufacturer, Hospira,
stopped making the product. What does it say about a state -- and a
society -- that has to buy its lethal drugs on the sly through a private
middleman, as Nebraska evidently did recently?
It sends the same ghoulish message to the nation -- and to the world --
that the audience at a Republican debate in September sent when it wildly cheered the record rate of executions in Texas.

Following
those cheers, Texas Gov. Rick Perry chillingly told debate moderator
Brian Williams that night that he "never struggled" with the idea that
one of the men executed during his tenure was innocent. This says more
about Perry, of course, than it does about the Texas' capital punishment
regime, which has been repeatedly criticized even
by the conservative United States Supreme Court. It says the gulf
between the cavalier attitude of officials like Perry and the injustice often foisted upon capital convicts is large and growing larger.

If
this gulf widens -- as the DPIC's numbers suggest it has -- then states
like Nebraska and officials like Perry run the risk of becoming
constitutional outliers. The cheers for capital punishment may still be
loud, in other words, but they are coming from fewer judges,
politicians, lawyers, and jurors. Illinois turned away from the death penalty in 2011. For now, Oregon
has, too. There were no death penalties imposed in Maryland, South
Carolina, Missouri, or Indiana in 2011. And California is one ballot
initiative away from finally packing in its wretched excuse of a capital scheme.

The "evolving standard" of decency, the core element of the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, clearly "evolved" in 2011 against
the nation's existing capital punishment protocols. Perhaps not enough
to generate any sort of swift movement from the justices in Washington.
But more than enough for men and women of good will to take notice.
Although I can't be certain, I suspect that the Supreme Court is only
two votes short of having a majority that would dramatically alter
existing death penalty rules in favor of capital defendants -- or
perhaps do away with capital punishment all together. Don't say I didn't
warn you.